Why Bush Isn’t Responsible for Today’s Debt Crisis

We get it, the last thing President Obama wants is to be blamed for is the nation’s growing debt—or anything else, actually. But the statute of limitations on blaming President George W. Bush for everything—anything—must have run out by now. On the debt in particular, it’s sort of a hard thing to avoid considering President Obama is the first president in history to preside over four years of deficits in excess of $1 trillion.

But in the time honored tradition of the Obama Administration, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner took to the Sunday talk shows to wrongly lay the blame for the country’s massive debt squarely at the feet of President Bush. Geithner, however, overlooks the truth and ignores just how much deeper in debt President Obama’s failed leadership will leave America in the future.

Speaking on Meet the Press, Geithner claimed that “The vast bulk of the increase in debt is a result of the policy choices made by [Obama’s] predecessor to finance very expensive tax cuts by borrowing, to finance two wars by borrowing, finance a big expansion of Medicare by borrowing, not cutting other spending or raising taxes. That’s the bulk of the contribution.” And of course, Geithner says that Obama is blameless, arguing that his policies “caused only about 12%, a very small fraction of the increase in debt you’ve seen over this period of time.”

First thing’s first: Are President Bush’s policies to blame for today’s debt? Quite simply, no.

Tax cuts of 2001 and 2003:

The left has blamed the Bush tax cuts for wiping out a $5.6 trillion surplus, leaving America with “deficits as far as the eye can see.” That surplus, though, never existed.

According to Heritage research, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that surplus in January 2001 based on the assumption that the economy would keep growing at the late 1990s rate, that the stock market bubble would continue and generate record revenues, and that there would be no recessions, terrorist attacks or natural disasters, and that all discretionary spending would fall to 1930s levels.

Those assumptions, as we now know, were miles off target, and the anticipated surplus never materialized. From the years 2002 to 2011, the United States ran a deficit of about $6.1 trillion — an $11.7 trillion swing from what CBO projected. At a cost of $1.7 trillion, the Bush tax cuts only account for 14% of that amount. Blaming those tax cuts for today’s debt just doesn’t add up.

The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Medicare Prescription Drug Program:

How about the war spending and the prescription drug costs that Geithner also cites as the root cause of the debt? Again, he’s wrong. And here’s why.

Those policies were implemented in the early 2000s, and through 2008, annual deficits ranged from $160 billion to $458 billion annually. But in 2009, after President Obama took office, that number shot up to $1.4 trillion. How could existing policies with stable costs suddenly triple the annual deficit? They couldn’t — the cause was collapsing revenues from the recession along with Obama’s stimulus spending.

The Future:

While Geithner and the president are turning their heads to stare down the past, they’re refusing to do anything about the future. And they’re making matters worse. Under the president’s budget, mandatory spending increases by $1.16 trillion through 2022 while producing cumulative deficits of $6.4 trillion. Meanwhile, the president does nothing to reform the tax code or to tackle the entitlement spending crisis, leaving the future even worse than the present.

Join The Discussion

Medicare Part D and the wars, which cost approximately $1.5 trillion total over the decade in question, are shrugged off, but the stimulus bill, an $800 billion expense, gets placed in the same breath as the second worst depression our country has ever faced. That's a pretty bold-faced piece of partisan hackery, even for Heritage.

Let's compare apples to apples. Obama's so-called stimulus bill, for shovel-ready jobs that were not so shovel-ready as we later learned, was not a one-and-done deal. It is now part of the baseline. Therefore, that $800B annual expense now becomes $8T over a decade…and that at the very least since the baseline comes with an automatic annual increase. Now…compare that figure to the paltry $1.5T expense over the last decade of Bush's Medicare part D, which I oppose, and two wars, which I support.

By the way, regarding those wars, are you ready to tell the 4000+ families of slain American soldiers, to their faces, that their loved ones died in vain? These wars have dragged on too long for me too, but we can either fight them over there or fight them over here. The federal government's number one priority, even before sacrosanct wealth redistribution programs, is providing a safe haven for its citizens to live and pursue happiness.

And Obama's solution is to expand both, the part D wasn't paid for, so der fuhrers solution is to make it even bigger and cost more, then claim he saved $4B because seniors got that much more money from the treasury. Saved seniors $4B maybe, but cost us $10B at least when you add in the interest on the money he isn't even paying back the principle of. You want proof there wasn't a depression, "Cash for clunkers", in a depression you don't go out and buy cars, you fix your old car, or you walk. You don't go further into debt so you can drive a flashy car to the poor house.

Evidently you don't know how to read or comprehend what you read. The writer states clearly why Prescription Drug cost is no longer an excuse for the deficit growing by an average of over 1 Trillion a year and will continue to do so if Obama gets four more years.

Wow, where to begin with this pile of manure? First I'd like to acknowledge your labeling of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as simple 'policies', as if it's the 'policy' of the United States of America to kill an estimated 138,000 Iraqi and Afghan civilians so far? Not enemy soldiers, not enemy combatants, civilians just trying to live their lives in (relative) peace. Some 'policy'.

Anyway, to the so-called logic at work here. It is utterly ludicrous to say that the Bush tax cuts and the aforementioned killing-brown-people 'policies' didn't add to the deficit. Far from it, the price tag these Bush decisions is in the trillions of dollars, and none of those decisions expired on January 20, 2009 when Obama took office. So I'm sorry, but there is simply no negation possible here, no way to spin these numbers away from the truth–a sizeable portion of the Obama deficits were the result of Bush policies, period.

And this is equally laughable: "Meanwhile, the president does nothing to reform the tax code…" The Senate voted just yesterday on a tax code reform suggested by Obama, the so-called Buffett Rule that would prevent millionaires from paying a lower income tax rate than the majority of middle-class Americans while adding to the revenue side of our deficit equation. Who shot that down in the Senate? The defenders of the wealthy and destroyers of the middle class, of course: the GOP. And why? Apparently because the projected $47 billion in additional revenue isn't enough. $500 million in taxpayer dollars to Solyndra is worth weeks of hand-wringing and finger-pointing, but $47 BILLION flowing in the other direction is anathema because it would come from our all-powerful job creators (who have apparently been lying down on the job, since unemployment remains high). Just par for the course non-reason from the GOP.

can you pull yourself from your pile of manure to realize bush isn't in office and realize he hasn't been in 4 years??!! This man Obama was in the senate for two years with bush it's not like he didn't know what he was getting into while fabricating his campaign to "change!" But why "change" when ignorant ones will excuse it all and obama capitalizes on it because you won't hold him accountable like you hold his predecessors! Obama says anything without certainty and you think no one should be wiser than just to believe him! Grow up and quit trusting the distrusting!

This may sound/look as though I'm off point in this discussion, but if one considers what was (prior to the emergence of Liberalism in the late 50's, early 60's) to what now is today, I think you'll get the point.

To those who publicly profess to be “Liberal” and vote that way, consider what began about the mid 1950’s and has evolved into what exists today:
Parental disobedience. (Don’t listen to your Parents, we know better.)
Civil disobedience, (Protest/Mob rule)
Judicial disobedience. (Laws are meaningless.)
Constitutional disobedience. (Bastardization of the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment.)
Moral disobedience. (Rampant murder, Abortion, open Homosexuality, open Gay Rights, Same sex marriage, open promiscuity, blatant corruption and etc.)
Religious disobedience. (Too restrictive, Civil and/or Sacramental Marriage, no longer necessary, 2010 Census, 51% simply live together. Divorce/like playing musical chairs, recreational sex,)
and on and on.

That's the legacy Liberals/Liberalism is leaving, YOU OWN IT, LOCK, STOCK and BARREL!

Liberalism is destroying this great country. where we were once admired, respected and envied. My heart is saddened every time I think of the 240,000 of my generation who gave their lives in WWII for this disrespectful and undeserving segment of society.

I THANK YOU FATHER, that I was able to experience almost a third of my life (34 years) under the influence of Conservative values where we were taught "to respect your elders, Children were to be seen and not heard, where they learned from what they saw and heard", "to never bring shame upon ones family", whereas today, Biblical quote: "They will glory in their own shame.", unquote..
We should all be thinking of a phrase that's going around today, quote: "When you're digging and you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING.", unquote.
MAY GOD HAVE MERCY UPON THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA and restore HIS LAWS and PRECEPTS!

And I'm no rocket scientist, but to consider the "Buffett Rule" a "tax reform" is absolutely ridiculous . If passed in the Senate and House and signed by the President, this "reform" would only add to the already insane tax code.

You need to lay of the Kool Aid. The most accurate method of reporting the debt is as a percentage of GDP. Under Clinton it decreased 13.7% and that was with a Republican Congress, Debt as a percentage of GDP increased 5 .6% in the 8 years of Bush. Debt as a percentage of GDP increased 21.6% under Obama. So Debt as a percentage of GDP increased almost 4 times as much in three years under Obama as it did in 8 years under Bush. Do it year by year and the Debt increased by 84% more under the Republican Congress under Bush as compared to the Democrats who were in control of both Houses of Congress from January 3, 2007-2011 which included two years of the Bush Administration. Unemployment under Bush from 2001- 2008 ranged from 4.6 % to 7,1% or an average of 5.9% and that was with the Democrats in control of Congress for the last two years. it didn't reach 7,1% until 2008. TARP and the Banks could not have been bailed out in 2008 without the Majority Democrats.

Drilling on Federal Lands increased 58% under Clinton and 116% under Bush. This is how a gallon of gas got down from $4.00 to $1.84. It was $1,84 when Obama took office. Obama decreased drilling on Federal lands by 30% and then there was the illegal Gulf Oil Moratorium which are two major reasons why a gallon has gone up 115% under Obama.

Obama increased the troops in Afghanistan which is not winnable. No outside force has conquered it since Alexander the Great which was over 2000 years ago. Meanwhile our young men are fodder ver their. Bush left it and went to Iraq. Take a tour of "Wounded Warriors" and look at the maimed of our young men and the distress of their families. Check your facts.

Buffet rule isn't reforming the tax code, it is just adding more taxes to it. The obama tax cuts did change the rates for everyone, which he had signed into law twice now. Bushes tax cuts ended 3 years ago. So you might be able to claim that was reform since it changed everyones rates. But to raise one rate for a small group is not reform.
No, not taking money that isn't owed to the government does not cost the taxpayer anything. Writing a check to solyndra does cost money. I would have no problem if he gave solyndra tax breaks and if they went under so what the taxpayer lost nothing.
Tax reform would be like removing the EITC, there is a boondongle that actually costs money, not cashing checks from taxpayers like buffett, who is fighting obama about what he does owe now. So take him to court and let us see who is telling the truth about if he is paying his fair share.

Are you serious? The Bush presidency contributed nothing to the national debt? 2 wars? An expansion of an entitlement program? Tax cuts? Are you claiming that none of these (let alone in combination) had an effect on our fiscal position?

This is not to say the Obama administration is not faultless – of course it is! But cherry picking numbers to rewrite history is silly at best. Plus, your evidence of causality needs help, like when you say " the cause was collapsing revenues from the recession along with Obama’s stimulus spending." Um, the recession started during Bush's term.

Now, a Bush or McCain presidency post Lehman Brothers may have used different tools and the deficits may have been smaller, but hard to know for certain what politicians will do when under pressure.

Amen Tomas, it's amazing that no one ever mentions that the Democrats have been running the congress from 2007 thru 2010, and they have systematically through their control of the purse strings, tanked the housing and financial markets with rules and regulations Sarbanes Oxley,Dodd-Frank ,Et-al

The writer does not claim that Bush did not contribute to the debt. The article points out that the massive deficit spending by Obama is not the result of Bush policies and counter Geitner's ridiculous premise that O is only responsible for 12% of the overall the increases. If you accept Geitner's argument then I say certainly O could at least reduce his spending by 12% to place 100% of the blame squarely on Bush.

That aside can we have a budget please, over 1000 days and counting. For a Senator that Bush's spending (under a DNC congress able to stop him) was treason why increase the level of spending as President? Why not end the wars (they were ended before he took office the advancement of the withdrawal is irresponsible politics), why not kill Bush's Medicare spending, why spend $800B in one shot, why speculate on green energy, … must I go on?

As long as you bring up Lehman Brothers… A sputtering Barney Frank demanded LB give him answers regarding over sight; they should have answered "Surely the over sight is the House Chairman of the Financial Services Committee." See TJ below, he is spot on.

Congress controls the spending. The last budget passed by Republicans (the House) left a deficit of a scant $162 Billion. Without wars it would have been a surplus. That was the lowest deficit as a % of GDP in 35 years. Democrats have controlled all spending since 2007, during which they have nearly bankrupted the country with $7 trillion in deficits.
The 3 years after the Bush tax cuts, the revenues boomed, increasing by over $1 trillion. Lastly, the sub-prime mortgage bubble was created by Clinton changing the laws of CRA and Fannie Mae. Bush had zero to do with that. Dems created the bubble, protected it from regulation, and fully own it. In fact, instead of shutting down the fannie mae failure, Hussein has expanded it.

48 billion is about .8% of 17 trillion and ther were plans to spen some of it anyway (of course). Lets not forget that in his first year he raised the budget of every department by 8% at the least and the EPA got close to 15% . Regardless of all this I have never seen a president blame other presidents for thier problems like this guy. He's like a little kid WASN"T ME! THEY DID IT !! he needs to man up and fix the problems instead of constantly campaining.

Dear Liberals, Bush was not a fiscal conservative (we all agree on this fact) , now respectfully get over it.. Please understand that if you don't acknolege the over-spending problem that our government has http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (this includes Obama's policies) that it wont matter what Bush spent because we will all be bankrupt..

The author is trying to make the case that Bush was indeed a fiscal conservative. I don't see how you can expect "Liberals" to own up to our debt problems when you can't even chastise this author for completely missing the point you are making. You're right: It's a two way street so let's not pretend otherwise, like the author is doing. Putting more blame on Obama than is deserved, to me, is not helping. While it may get him out of office, it could also result in another Bush with house and senate majorities. After all, anyone but Obama!

"Those policies were implemented in the early 2000s, and through 2008, annual deficits ranged from $160 billion to $458 billion annually."

Looks to me like he explicitly talks about the the debt that Bush added.

My two biggest complaints against Bush were that 20% of his budget was borrowed and the Patriot Act. So you can imagine how I fell about the NDAA and the Obama's budget where almost half of the money the government spends is borrowed.

The Buffet rule won't make a dent in the yearly budget deficit. Whats the point in arguing over saving the dog house when the mansion is burning down behind us!?!?!? This president hasn't done anything to address the real issues. How can he? The biggest problems, by far, are the interest on the national debt and entitlement programs…. and he holds up Obamacare as the crowning acheivement of his presidency and he's increased the debt more than any president in history!!!

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” – Senator Obama 2006

My favorite quote of then Senator Obama. Where the $!%^@ did that Obama go because it's certainly not the sentiments of President Obama!

The movie "Inside Job" and the supporting facts make clear that both presidents Bush played a role in the mess we are in now; Obama and Co. and the current congress are making it worse. The American people are apparently too stupid to elect enough people (like Ron Paul) who understand the cause of our economic problems and a Constitutional remedy…and still they depend on the fools they elect instead. We are all to blame.

Obama administration has nothing else to run on. No one is suggesting Bush was a fiscal conservative, but that's all one has to do is look at the numbers. 4 trillion in in 8 years (including the wars (because of 9/11 that the left conveniently likes to forget) compared to 5 trillion in 3 1/2 years under Obama. And that's includes the "good war" as Obama called it, Afghanistand.

Obama has run the country into the ground with his insane Marxist spending and Crony Graft Payoffs. His EPA, Department of Energy and GSA policies have been European Socialism all the way. Even his Racist Department of Justice has leaned toward forwarding the Communist Multicultural Crap.

Obama has no one to blame but himself….but we know this self-absorbed narcissistic SNOB won't take the Blame for anything…he only takes other people's credit. He is a Fake, Phony and Liar who insults the Office of the President and We the American People.

He is a Racist who has exacerbated the Race Wound in this country and promotes policies that are anti-God, anti-Woman and anti-Family. Obama is Pathetic.

Obama has run the country into the ground with his insane Marxist spending and Crony Graft Payoffs. His EPA, Department of Energy and GSA policies have been European Socialism all the way. Even his Racist Department of Justice has leaned toward forwarding the Communist Multicultural Crap.

Obama has no one to blame but himself….but we know this self-absorbed narcissistic SNOB won't take the Blame for anything…he only takes other people's credit. He is a Fake, Phony and Liar who insults the Office of the President and We the American People.

He is a Racist who has exacerbated the Race Wound in this country and promotes policies that are anti-God, anti-Woman and anti-Family. Obama is Pathetic.

I don't know where the idea that the Bush tax cuts "cost" anything comes from. Revenues actually increased in the years following. And as far as the wars costing so much, if government stimulus spending is so great why is military spending not just as great. After all, the money goes to hiring people and buying things, all of which, according to liberals stimulates the economy.

Bulldog,
It took Bush two terms to run up that $1.5 trillion, assuming that number is legit. Between a failed stimulus bill tagging taxpayers for $800 billion and another $440 billion for a bogus jobs bill that left the unemployment rate higher than when Bush left office, your man has spent more in discretionary spending in three years than Bush did in his entire 8 years in office. The net result? Unemployment rate when Bush left office – near 7%. Current bogus unemployment rate – 8.2%. The real unemployment number is grossly under-reported since hundreds of thousands of Americans who no longer collect UC benefits or are not otherwise accounted for by the BLS are simply excluded from the unemployment rate, not to mention that while libs claim that more Americans were forced to apply for food stamps under Bush, obama is directly responsible for at least 10 million more Americans receiving food stamps. As the other posters have already indicated, congressional Democrats have controlled both houses the majority of time since 2007. Is it mere coincidence that the recession began formally in 2007 and we have yet to experience the full recovery that is typical of previous recessions?

Heritage keeps making the same mistake over and over and I don't know why. First they claim the Bush surplus never existed, then they say the Bush Tax Cuts were "only" 14% of the swing from those very same surpluses to real debt. The 14% isn't even rounded correctly — it was truncated — I guess just to make the number sound even smaller!

Using numbers from this article, the Bush Tax Cuts make up 28% of the debt accumulated from 2002-2011.

Let's try a little education. After the 2003 tax RATE cuts, federal income tax receipts (i.e., actual dollars collected) INCREASED an average of 10% per year for the next four years. Sure, they dropped after that due the recession, but that had nothing to do with tax policy. This was not the first time that tax revenue increased after tax RATES were cut. The same thing happened not only in the 2000's, but also the 1980's, the 1960's, and the 1920's. This is what we call empirical, real-word evidence. For the theory behind it, look up Laffer Curve.

In any case, the income tax structure in place for 2007 created a deficit of only $160 billion. How was that possible if the Bush tax cuts inherently "cost" so much? What we need is more economic growth and less government spending, not Marxist class warfare.

You're all over the map, apparently needing me to hold every classical liberal position out there in order to rage against what I said. I'm not remotely liberal, btw. And I am familiar with the Laffer Curve. Know why it isn't called the Laffer Line? Cause not all tax cuts are good. If they were, the ideal rate would be zero.

But you seem to disagree with the author (and me) that there was an increase in debt due to the Bush Tax Cuts. Is this your position? If so, why only take issue with me?

I'll tell you why. Because you are a partisan, GOP Cheerleader hack. And you, sir, are part of the problem. You are dangerous because you are paying attention yet you somehow come to the wrong conclusions. You can be heard spouting rhetoric like "anyone but Obama," and you believe it. You read this hopelessly skewed article and grab your pom poms and do a little GOP cheer. Then you blast me for saying the BTC increased debt?????? That's the author's claim, I'm just disputing the amount.

Show an ounce of intellectual honesty and take on the author. Never mind, he's on your team….

Wow. Asserting that liberalism is a mental disorder and my comment not to say that because it would end up in the DSM-IV Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders as a valid diagnosis, must have made somebody mad. All I said was that using liberalism as a mental disorder would give them the opportunity to claim disability benefits down the road.

Sorry, you are all missing the boat. This recession started in 1977 when Jimma Carter got the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) passed. This was designed to make it so that people could OWN a home whether they could pay the mortgage or not. Pres's Reagan and Bush '41 let the bill lie, but P. Clinton put teeth into the act and threatened the bank that if they didn't comply he would bring the hammer down on them.
Banks are in business to make money. Close one door and they will look for another. Its like telling your teenage son that he can't go to bed with his girlfriend. He will obey, but then do his deed in the back seat of the car. After all, its not a bed.
After Clinton put the hammer down, the banks figured out how to stay within the perameters off the law and still make money. It worked so well the banks went crazy, made boo-coo buck until it fell apart in the fall of 2007.
I had a printing business that printed almost exclusively for the real estate industry. I lost everything when it crashed. I went from a $3 million valuation to salvaging my car and household furnishings. So I have read everything I can find on this subject.
Bottom line: DON"T BLAME BUSH!

President Bush wasn't the best we've every had but in comparison to the imposter in office now, he was. Democrats, get over blaming others for your incompetence and get real with those who voted you in. This country CANNOT take 4 more years of this imposters so-called leadership. We will be so bankrupted, we will have to sell our assets to other countries just to begin to pay them all back.

Already checked with Turkey, they don't want pelosi, even offered to pay shipping.
Cheer up, if the rinos take the senate they can impeach obama in Feb. 4 years of Biden could help a lot of the problems. The rino's will still want to cut, 4 years of romney with an out of control boehner is terifying. He is drooling to give romney a $2T deficit budget.
I do blame bush, if he would obey the law, instead of making obama think the president is above the law, maybe obama would think the constitution rules not him. But we will never know, thanks bush! Bush had a law he signed to build a fence, and guess what like obama he ignored it.

ACTUALLY, both parties over decades are to blame for today's debt. So what that one party spent too much money. Guess what, THEY BOTH spend to much money. Both are big government, one more so than the other. Obama may be the most progressive president since FDR, but Bush was probably the biggest Government Republican, by all accounts no Conservative.

It's interesting that people keep bringing up the housing bubble supposedly created by Clinton and how the CRA laws were changed. This has been debunked many times. The housing bubble was built on loans created by companies like Countrywide, Ameriwest, and many other virtually unregulated mortgage companies. Mortgage loans to the CRA amounted to less than 10% of all loans. In fact a study by McKinsey & Co show that CRA mortgage loans have faired far better because CRA areas were less impacted. Of course people will try to make things up… And hope that the tooth fairy will answer their wish..

Actually, Obama is more correct than Republicans would like to admit in some respects. Clinton passed the expanded CRA that caused our financial collapse. Bush expanded our problems by passing the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, warring against Iraq, and No Child Left Behind. The problem for Obama is that he has done absolutely nothing to cut spending and down-size our bloated Federal Government, in order to prevent complete financial collapse. Instead, Obama the lunatic incompetent who can't seem to get beyond his rage against Whites and his childlike fantasies of Socialist wealth re-distribution, spends more. Like many narcissists, Obama has not conscience about all of the people he is robbing.

This author is plucking the low hanging fruit by arguing the Bush Tax Cuts were not completely responsible for our debt and you homers are cheering him on. Don't be such suckers for your beloved GOP. They're no more interested in cutting back on spending or stopping the insanity of the Federal Reserve Bank than Dems. They are on the same side and it isn't ours.

Can any of you homers justify the 28 cents of every dollar borrowed from 2002-2011 being spent on the Bush Tax Cuts?

Throw in the wars and Medicare and suddenly Geithner may not be so far off. Yet the author throws out a bogus 14% imaginary number and you homers clap like trained seals…

Cute but is that all you got? Educate me, Bobby. Start by telling me if you agree with the author that the Bush Tax Cuts caused a 1.7 trillion dollar increase to US debt from 02-11 — or do you disagree?

The author attempts to say the wars and Medicare expansion were not responsible for today's debt because deficits up until 2008 never exceeded $458b, however in 2009 the deficit shot up to $1.4t. It would be a weak link at best if the cost of the wars and Medicare expansion had ended in 2008 but since they continued in 2009, it's complete jibberish. Even though the wars and Medicare expansion continued in 2009, the author seems to think only the recession and Obama's stimulus plan are to blame for our debt.

Does the author believe the recession was just some random anvil that fell out of the sky and landed on our head? Does the author not think the bank bailouts were as damaging as the Obama stimulus? Does the author not believe a decade of deficit spending, borrowing and Federal Reserve Bank insanity had nothing to do with the recession?

Does the author believe Bush policies no longer had any impact on the economy the day he left office?

Lets not forget the biggest blame goes to…….
FORD! If he left us on the gold standard the feds coudln't just print money. There is where it all went down hill.
Once they could just pretend the money is worth something they had no need to be responsible.

Tax cuts cost more than the wars.. I see you negatively bot down any comment that contradicts this pile of propaganda manipulation, so I'm not expecting much. Heritage foundation funded by the likes of the Waltons of all scumbags stated the tax cuts would result in wiping out the debt by 2011.. we can clearly see this was all in a conglomerate effort to destroy gov that protects the environment and labor laws.

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times? Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

Email address

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do. Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.